An exploration of pharmacy-specific reasons for non-adherence to prescribed medicines in a socioeconomically deprived, ethnically diverse UK cohort

Methods - Ethical approval for the study was granted by both the local National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Aston University’s REC. Seven focus groups were conducted between October and December 2011 in medical or community settings within inner-city Birmingham (UK). Discussions were guided by a theme plan which was developed from key themes identified by a literature review and piloted via a Patient Consultation Group. Each focus group had between 3 and 7 participants. The groups were digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were then subjected to thematic analysis via constant comparison in order to identify emerging themes. Results - Participants recognised the pharmacist as an expert source of advice about prescribed medicines, a source they frequently felt a need to consult as a result of the inadequate supply of medicines information from the prescriber. However, an emerging theme was a perception that pharmacists had an oblique profit motive relating to the supply of generic medicines with frequent changes to the ‘brand’ of generic supplied being attributed to profit-seeking by pharmacists. Such changes had a negative impact on the patient’s perceived efficacy of the therapy which may make non-adherence more likely. Conclusions - Whilst pharmacists were recognised as medicines experts, trust in the pharmacist was undermined by frequent changes to generic medicines. Such changes have the potential to adversely impact adherence levels. Further, quantitative research is recommended to examine if such views are generalisable to the wider population of Birmingham and to establish if such views impact on adherence levels.

Applicability of non-modular assessment in construction management and allied undergraduate programmes:perspective of the academics involved

Undergraduate programmes on construction management and other closely related built environment disciplines are currently taught and assessed on a modular basis. This is the case in the UK and in many other countries globally. However, it can be argued that professionally oriented programmes like these are better assessed on a non-modular basis, in order to produce graduates who can apply knowledge on different subject contents in cohesion to solve complex practical scenarios in their work environments. The examples of medical programmes where students are assessed on a non-modular basis can be cited as areas where this is already being done. A preliminary study was undertaken to explore the applicability of non-modular assessment within construction management undergraduate education. A selected sample of university academics was interviewed to gather their perspectives on applicability of non-modular assessment. General acceptance was observed among the academics involved that integrating non-modular assessment is applicable and will be beneficial. All academics stated that at least some form of non-modular assessment as being currently used in their programmes. Examples where cross-modular knowledge is assessed included comprehensive/multi-disciplinary project modules and creating larger modules to amalgamate a number of related subject areas. As opposed to a complete shift from modular to non-modular, an approach where non-modular assessment is integrated and its use further expanded within the current system is therefore suggested. This is due to the potential benefits associated with this form of assessment to professionally aligned built environment programmes

Pharmacology and the safe prescribing of drugs

Understanding the pharmacological principles and safe use of drugs is just as important in surgical practice as in any other medical specialty. With an ageing population with often multiple comorbidities and medications, as well as an expanding list of new pharmacological treatments, it is important that surgeons understand the implications of therapeutic drugs on their daily practice. The increasing emphasis on high quality and safe patient care demands that doctors are aware of preventable adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and interactions, try to minimize the potential for medication errors, and consider the benefits and harms of medicines in their patients. This chapter examines these aspects from the view of surgical practice and expands on the implications of some of the most common medical conditions and drug classes in the perioperative period. The therapeutic care of surgical patients is obvious in many circumstances – for example, antibacterial prophylaxis, thromboprophylaxis, and postoperative analgesia. However, the careful examination of other drug therapies is often critical not only to the sustained treatment of the associated medical conditions but to the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery. The benefit–harm balance of many therapies may be fundamentally altered by the stress of an operation in one direction or the other; this is not a decision that should wait until the anaesthetist arrives for a preoperative assessment or one that should be left to junior medical or nursing staff on the ward.